There’s no better way to understand how technology has changed modern life than to read a decade-by-decade list of innovations since 1900. What brand new business or industry was created by this innovation? What old business or industry was made obsolete?
For a complete list, refer to the textbook.
A technology cycle begins with the “birth” of a new technology and ends when that technology reaches its limits and “dies” as it is replaced by a newer, substantially better technology.
Early in a technology cycle, there is still much to learn and progress is slow, as depicted by point A on the S-curve. The flat slope indicates that increased effort (i.e., money, research and development) brings only small improvements in technological performance. Intel’s technology cycles have followed this pattern. Fortunately, as the technology matures, researchers figure out how to get better performance from the new technology. This is represented by point B of the S-curve. The steeper slope indicates that small amounts of effort will result in significant increases in performance. At point C, the flat slope again indicates that further efforts to develop this particular technology will result in only small increases in performance. More importantly, however, point C indicates that the performance limits of that particular technology are being reached. In other words, additional significant improvements in performance are highly unlikely. After a technology has reached its limits at the top of the S-curve, significant improvements in performance usually come from radical new designs or new performance-enhancing materials. In Figure 7.2, that new technology is represented by the second S-curve. The changeover or discontinuity between the new and old technologies is represented by the dotted line. At first, the new and old technologies will likely co-exist. Eventually, however, the new technology will replace the old technology. When that happens, the old technology cycle will be complete and a new one will have started.
Source: M.L. Tushman, P.C. Anderson, & C. O’Reilly, “Technology Cycles, Innovation Streams, and Ambidextrous Organizations: Organization Renewal Through Innovation Streams and Strategic Change,” in Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, eds. M.L. Tushman & P. Anderson (1997), 3-23.
Refer to Exhibit 10.3 for a more complete picture of Innovation Streams.
Over the long run, the best way to do that is for a company to create a stream of its own innovative ideas and products year after year. Consequently, we define innovation streams as patterns of innovation over time that can create sustainable competitive advantage. An innovation stream begins with a technological discontinuity, in which a scientific advance or a unique combination of existing technologies creates a significant breakthrough in performance or function. Technological discontinuities are followed by an era of ferment characterized by technological substitution and design competition. Technological substitution occurs when customers purchase new technologies to replace older technologies. An era of ferment is also characterized by design competition in which the old technology and several different new technologies compete to establish a new technological standard or dominant design. Because of large investments in old technology, and because the new and old technologies are often incompatible with each other, companies and consumers are reluctant to switch to a different technology during design competition. An era of ferment is followed by the emergence of a dominant design, which becomes the accepted market standard for technology. The emergence of a dominant design signals a change away from design experimentation and competition to incremental change, a phase in which companies innovate by lowering the cost and improving the functioning and performance of the dominant design.
An innovation stream begins with a technological discontinuity, in which a scientific advance or unique combination of existing technologies creates a significant breakthrough in performance or function.
Technological discontinuities are followed by a discontinuous change which is characterized by technological substitution and design competition.
Discontinuous change is followed by the emergence of a dominant design. Dominant designs can emerge in several ways:
critical mass (most people use it)
solves a practical problem
independent standards bodies
A good example of this process is the move from the portable radio, to portable cassette player (Walkman), to portable CD player, to music being stored on computer chips in digital music players.
When we say that innovation begins with great ideas, we’re really saying that innovation begins with creativity. Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas. While companies can’t command creativity from employees (“You will be more creative!”), they can jump-start innovation by building creative work environments, in which workers perceive that creative thoughts and ideas are welcomed and valued.
Work is challenging when it requires hard work, demands attention and focus, and is seen as important to others in the organization. Researcher Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi said that challenging work promotes creativity because it creates a rewarding psychological experience known as “flow.” Flow is a psychological state of effortlessness, in which you become completely absorbed in what you’re doing and time seems to fly. (You begin work, become absorbed in it, and then suddenly realize that several hours have passed.) When flow occurs, who you are and what you’re doing become one. Csikszentmihalyi first encountered flow when studying artists. He said, "What struck me by looking at artists at work was their tremendous focus on the work, this enormous involvement, this forgetting of time and body. It wasn't justified by expectation of rewards, like, 'Aha, I'm going to sell this painting.'”
A creative work environment requires three kinds of encouragement: organizational, supervisory, and work group encouragement. Organizational encouragement of creativity occurs when management encourages risk taking and new ideas, supports and fairly evaluates new ideas, rewards and recognizes creativity, and encourages the sharing of new ideas throughout different parts of the company. Supervisory encouragement of creativity occurs when supervisors provide clear goals, encourage open interaction with subordinates, and actively support development teams’ work and ideas. Work group encouragement occurs when work group members have diverse experience, education, and backgrounds; when there is a mutual openness to ideas; when there is positive, constructive challenge to ideas; and when there is shared commitment to ideas.
A study of 72 product development projects (i.e., innovation) in 36 computer companies across the U.S., Europe, and Asia found that companies that succeeded in periods of discontinuous change (in which a technological discontinuity created a significant breakthrough in performance or function) typically followed an experiential approach to innovation. The experiential approach to innovation assumes that innovation is occurring within a highly uncertain environment, and that the key to fast product innovation is to use intuition, flexible options, and hands-on experience to reduce uncertainty and accelerate learning and understanding.
There are five parts to the experiential approach to innovation: design iterations, testing, milestones, multifunctional teams, and powerful leaders.
An “iteration” is a repetition. So, a design iteration is a cycle of repetition in which a company tests a prototype of a new product or service, improves on the design, and then builds and tests the improved product or service prototype. A product prototype is a full-scale working model that is being tested for design, function, and reliability. Testing is a systematic comparison of different product designs or design iterations. Companies that want to create a new dominant design following a technological discontinuity quickly build, test, improve, and retest a series of different product prototypes. Milestones are formal project review points used to assess progress and performance. By making people regularly assess what they’re doing, how well they’re performing, and whether they need to take corrective action, milestones provide structure to the general chaos that follows technological discontinuities. Milestones also shorten the innovation process by creating a sense of urgency that keeps everyone on task. Multifunctional teams are work teams composed of people from different departments. Multifunctional teams accelerate learning and understanding by mixing and integrating technical, marketing, and manufacturing activities. By involving all key departments in development from the start, multifunctional teams speed innovation through early identification of problems that would typically not have been identified until much later. Powerful leaders provide the vision, discipline, and motivation to keep innovation process focused, on time, and on target. Powerful leaders are able to get resources when they are needed, are typically more experienced, have high status in the company, and are held directly responsible for product success or failure.
While the experiential approach is used to manage innovation during periods of discontinuous change, a compression approach can be used during periods of incremental change, in which the focus is on systematically improving the performance and lowering the cost of the dominant technological design. A compression approach to innovation assumes that innovation is a predictable process, that incremental innovation can be planned using a series of steps, and that compressing the time it takes to complete those steps can speed up innovation.
There are five parts to the compression approach to innovation: planning, supplier involvement, shortening the time of individual steps, overlapping steps, and multifunctional teams.
When planning for incremental innovation, the goal is to squeeze or compress development time as much as possible, and the general strategy is to create a series of planned steps to accomplish that goal. Most planning for incremental innovation is based on the idea of generational change.
Generational change occurs when incremental improvements are made to a dominant technological design such that the improved version of the technology is fully backward compatible with the older version. So unlike technological discontinuities that result in the replacement of older technologies, generational change allows the old and newer versions of the same technological design to coexist in the marketplace. Because the compression approach assumes that innovation can follow a series of preplanned steps, one of the ways to shorten development time is supplier involvement. Delegating some of the preplanned steps in the innovation process to outside suppliers reduces the amount of work that internal development teams must do. Another way to shorten development time is to simply shorten the time of individual steps in the innovation process. One of the most common ways to do that is through computer-aided design (CAD). In a sequential design process, each step must be completed before the next step begins. But sometimes multiple development steps can be performed at the same time. Overlapping steps shortens the development process by reducing the delays or waiting time between steps.
Organization decline occurs when companies don’t anticipate, recognize, neutralize or adapt to the internal or external pressures that threaten their survival. In other words, decline occurs when organizations don’t recognize the need for change. The text gives uses Barneys department store in New York as an example for this section (pictured here).
In the blinded stage, decline begins because key managers don’t recognize the internal or external changes that will harm their organizations. This “blindness” may be due to a simple lack of awareness about changes. It may stem from an inability to understand the significance of changes. Or, it may simply come from the overconfidence that can develop when companies have been successful. In the inaction stage, as organizational performance problems become more visible, management may recognize the need to change but still take no action. The managers may be waiting to see if the problems will correct themselves. Or, they may find it difficult to change previous practices and policies that once led to success. Another possible reason is that they wrongly assume that they can make changes to correct problems, so they don’t feel the problems are urgent. In the faulty action stage, due to rising costs and decreasing profits and market share, management will announce “belt-tightening” plans designed to cut costs, increase efficiency, and restore profits. In other words, rather than recognizing the need for fundamental changes, managers assume that if they just run a “tighter ship,” company performance will return to previous levels. In the crisis stage, bankruptcy or dissolution (i.e., breaking up and selling the different parts of the company) is likely to occur unless the company completely reorganizes the way it does business. At this point, however, companies typically lack the resources needed to fully change how they run their businesses. In the dissolution stage, after failing to make the changes needed to sustain the organization, the company is dissolved through bankruptcy proceedings or by selling assets in order to pay suppliers, banks, and creditors.
Resistance to change is caused by self-interest, misunderstanding and distrust, and a general intolerance for change. People resist change out of self-interest, because they fear that change will cost or deprive them of something they value. For example, resistance might stem from a fear that the changes will result in a loss of pay, power, responsibility, or even perhaps one’s job. People also resist change because of misunderstanding and distrust, that is, they don’t understand the change or the reasons for it, or they distrust the people, typically management, behind the change. Ironically, when this occurs, some of the strongest resisters may support the changes in public, nodding and smiling their agreement, but then ignore the changes in private and just do their jobs as they always have. Management consultant Michael Hammer calls this deadly form of resistance the “Kiss of Yes.”
Resistance may also come from a generally low tolerance for change. Some people are simply less capable of handling change than others. People with a low tolerance for change are threatened by the uncertainty associated with change and worry that they won’t be able to learn the new skills and behaviors needed to successfully negotiate change in their companies.
According to Kurt Lewin, managing organizational change is a basic process of unfreezing, change intervention, and refreezing. Unfreezing is getting the people affected by change to believe that change is needed. During the change intervention itself, workers and managers change their behavior and work practices. Refreezing is supporting and reinforcing the new changes so they “stick.”
Resistance to change, like that of Atwater’s employees, is an example of frozen behavior. Given the choice between changing and not changing, most people would rather not change. Because resistance to change is natural and inevitable, managers need to unfreeze resistance to change to create successful change programs. The following methods, discussed on the next slide, can be used to manage resistance to change: education and communication, participation, negotiation, top management support, and coercion.
When resistance to change is based on insufficient, incorrect, or misleading information, managers should educate employees about the need for change and communicate change-related information to them. Managers must also supply the information and funding or other support employees need to make changes. Another way to reduce resistance to change is to have those affected by the change participate in planning and implementing the change process. Employees who participate have a better understanding of change and the need for it. Furthermore, employee concerns about change can be addressed as they occur if employees participate in the planning and implementation process.
Employees are less likely to resist change if they are allowed to discuss and agree on who will do what after change occurs. Resistance to change also decreases when change efforts receive significant managerial support. Top managers must do more than talk about the importance of change. They must provide the training, resources, and autonomy needed to make change happen. Finally, use of formal power and authority to force others to change is called coercion. Because of the intense negative reactions it can create (i.e., fear, stress, resentment, sabotage of company products), coercion should only be used when a crisis exists or when all other attempts to reduce resistance to change have failed.
How do you effectively start a change process? How do you encourage change-resistant employees to change? What would you do to include others? How would you get the process off to a quick start?
These tools are described on the following slides. Use the hyperlinks to maneuver the slides.
One of the reasons that organizational change efforts fail is that they are activity-oriented, meaning that they primarily focus on changing company procedures, management philosophy, or employee behavior. Typically, there is much buildup and preparation as consultants are brought in, presentations are made, books are read, and employees and managers are trained. There's a tremendous emphasis on "doing things the new way." But for all the focus on activities, on "doing," there's almost no focus on results, on seeing if all this activity has actually made a difference.
By contrast, results-driven change supplants the sole emphasis on activity with a laser-like focus on quickly measuring and improving results. Another advantage of results-driven change is that managers introduce changes in procedures, philosophy, or behavior only if they are likely to improve measured performance. In other words, managers actually test to see if changes make a difference.
A third advantage of results-driven change is that quick, visible improvements motivate employees to continue to make additional changes to improve measured performance.
The General Electric Workout is a special kind of results-driven change. It is a three-day meeting that brings together managers and employees from different levels and parts of an organization to quickly generate and act on solutions to specific business problems. On the first morning of a workout, the boss discusses the agenda and targets specific business problems that the group is to try to solve. Then, the boss leaves, and an outside facilitator breaks the group, typically 30 to 40 people, into five or six teams and helps them spend the next day and a half discussing and debating solutions. On day three, in what GE calls a "town meeting," the teams present specific solutions to their boss, who has been gone since day one. As each team spokesperson makes specific suggestions, the boss has only three options: agree on the spot, say no, or ask for more information so that a decision can be made by a specific agreed-on date.
While the GE Workout clearly speeds up change, it may fragment change, as different managers approve different suggestions in different town meetings across a company. By contrast, a transition management team provides a way to coordinate change throughout an organization.
A transition management team (TMT) is a team of 8 to 12 people whose full-time job is to manage and coordinate a company's change process. One member of the TMT is assigned the task of anticipating and managing the emotions and behaviors related to resistance to change. Despite their importance, many companies overlook the impact that negative emotions and resistant behaviors can have on the change process. Also, TMTs report to the CEO every day, decide which change projects are approved and funded, select and evaluate the people in charge of different change projects, and make sure that different change projects complement one another.
It is also important to say what a TMT is not. A TMT is not an extra layer of management further separating upper management from lower managers and employees. A TMT is not a steering committee that creates plans for others to carry out. Instead, the members of the TMT are fully involved with making change happen on a daily basis. Furthermore, it's not the TMT's job to determine how and why the company will change. That responsibility belongs to the CEO and upper management. But it is the TMT's responsibility to accomplish those changes and make them stick. Finally, a TMT is not permanent. Once the company has successfully changed, the TMT is disbanded.
Organizational development is a philosophy and collection of planned change interventions designed to improve an organization's long-term health and performance. Organizational development takes a long-range approach to change, assumes that top management support is necessary for change to succeed, creates change by educating workers and managers to change ideas, beliefs, and behaviors so problems can be solved in new ways, and emphasizes employee participation in diagnosing, solving, and evaluating problems.
Exhibit 10.11 is presented on the next slide. It represents the steps of planned change.
Source: W.J. Rothwell, R. Sullivan, & G.M. McLean, Practicing Organizational Development: A Guide For Consultants (San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company, 1995).
Organizational development interventions are aimed at changing large systems, small groups, or people. More specifically, the purpose of large system interventions is to change the character and performance of an organization, business unit, or department. The purpose of a small group intervention is to assess how a group functions, and help it work more effectively toward the accomplishment of its goals. The purpose of a person-focused intervention is to help people become aware of their attitudes and behaviors and acquire new skills and knowledge to increase interpersonal effectiveness.
A recent meta-analysis based on 52 studies and a combined total of 29,611 study participants indicated that it’s probably best to do both!
Changing the Work Setting).
Overall, there is a 55 percent chance that organizational change efforts will successfully bring changes to a company’s work setting. While the odds are still 55-45 in your favor, this is undoubtedly a much lower probability of success than you’ve seen with the management techniques discussed in other chapters. This simply reflects how strong resistance to change is in most companies.
Changing the People
Changing people means changing individual work behavior. The idea is powerful. Change the decisions people make. Change the activities they perform. Change the information they share with others. And change the initiatives they take on their own. Change these individual behaviors and collectively you change the entire company. Overall, there is a 57 percent chance that organizational change efforts will successfully change people’s individual work behavior. If you’re wondering why the odds aren’t higher, consider how difficult it is to simply change personal behavior. It’s incredibly difficult to quit smoking, change diet, or maintain a daily exercise program. Not surprisingly, changing personal behavior at work is also difficult. Thus, viewed in this context, a 57 percent chance of success is a notable achievement.